Hacker News Reader

Comment by imwillofficial | Hacker News Reader

And why should an employer pay for something against their interests?

Because they shouldn't be able to abuse the power asymmetry in the employer / employee relationship to advocate for their position, while denying the union an equal opportunity.

Alternatively, they don't have to pay for it. They can choose to just not have the "information" sessions.

This is a false dichotomy. As an employer, if I’m paying I can do whatever I want within the law. Who says a third party acting against my interests should get any air time at all?

That depends. Are you in favor of coercively using your influence over your employees to get what you want, or would you rather have them have all the information and arguments on both sides?

Are you saying that the employees of Amazon are not intellectually capable to determine when they are being told an untruth? How are you able to determine, when they are not?

No, I'm saying they should see all the information both sides have. Are you in favor of suppressing information on either side?

Please don't try to play rhetorical games like that. I asked that of you, since you implied that the workers at Amazon cannot determine what you have been able to discern. You are the person with 40 comments on this page repeating what is essentially the same comment.

I said that they should have all the information, regardless of whether they are able or not. That's not for me to judge. What more do you want?

So, do you want them to have all the information or not?

Define “all the information.” Because they can’t have it all... So should I facilitate people working counter to my interests?

All the information both sides want to offer.

Are you in favor of coercing workers to watch anti-union propaganda without giving the union an equivalent opportunity to persuade them?

If they have good arguments against unionization, I don't think it would be necessarily against their interest to have employees hear the other side as well.

That assumes people can tell the difference between good and bad arguments. If you look at the divergence between popular beliefs on economics and the spread of field consensus, that case gets really hard to make. The truth is usually a lot harder to communicate than populist soundbites are.

How are they supposed to even have the chance to tell the difference between the good and bad arguments if they don't get a chance to hear them both?

So people shouldn't be informed about the things they are voting on? Or they should only be allowed to hear pre-approved "good" arguments.

People should inform themselves. People shouldn't be forced to pay to have others give arguments against them.

Well, only one side gets that opportunity at the moment. Would you rather that be the case, that neither side be able to do it, or that both sides be able?

Why should they pay taxes? It's against their interest.

Well... they kinda don't pay taxes, but that's a whole different barrel of monkeys.

AFAIK they don't pay corporate income taxes... because they don't make corporate income (aka profit). They do pay other forms of taxes, eg. payroll, medicare, unemployment, sales tax.

Amazon? Your argument is hilarious. They are widely known as paying a pittance in taxes.

What do you think my argument is?

Who knows, it was that bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com